About your Search

20121027
20121104
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 60
working on an administrative issue through law school and was very interested in how admissions worked and how students did after they graduated and it didn't take long to sort of look at what was happening, to sense something like "mismatch" might be important. we were admitting large preferences, and 90% chance of graduating only a 50% chance of passing the bar. welcome. that meant only 45% of students we were admitting actually went on to smoothly go through law school and get their law degrees. wasn't hard to look at other schools in los angeles where students wouldn't have gotten in without references to see that those students had better outcomes. us started looking into this and look for a relevant database to test this and in 2004-2005 developed the paper that first discusses the issue in law school context and found this is quite a large problem, nationally the great bulk of minority students especially african-american students were receiving large preferences on a scale of a couple hundred spt points. traits were generally poor for this group. only a third of black starting
the libel make markets more transparent, stable and efficient. from george washington university law school, and this is 45 minutes. >> good morning. i am paul berman, 19 of the law school as art said and i want to welcome you to this conference and obviously welcome mary schapiro, chairman of the securities and exchange commission. so one of the things that i think makes this law school, the george washington university law school distinctive and different from other top law schools is the degree to which we are integrated into the real world of law and policy practice in this country. so one of the things we are always striving to do this not be an ivory tower academic institution solely, but also one that is always trying to engage the practicing bar, people from corporations, people who are not lawyers in the educational enterprise and also when public policy discussions. obviously we have a great advantage in being in washington d.c. and having so much access to the world of policy. but in addition, it's not just the location. it has to be your orientation as a law school. so it is som
. my biggest concern was law enforcement but in law enforcement is the same thing. they are incredibly well trained and intelligent and good at their jobs so you better have an explanation for everything. the day i got pulled over they asked me you have been arrested, i have never been arrested in my life which is true but they searched the car and found drugs and i was a product of the system. it was irrelevant that the search was illegal. the drugs were in the car. they got the drugs off of the street but that has not been an effective strategy when you start looking at the drug war. >> so you are busted. some time later you have -- there's another legal issue that comes up. your back is against eyewall and that is when you get the knock on the door. you walk out and somebody says these are law enforcement people out here. i was arrested. >> i was arrested and scared straight. i decided i would rather be poor and free than half a little bit of money and not able to sleep at night. soaker two years i was on probation. i paid an attorney to $32,000 to get me off the hook and that is so
in the question when i was innocently working on the administrative issues for the law school that i taught, and i was very interested in the idea of academic sports, missions work, and it didn't take long to sort of look at what was happening to sense that something like a mismatch might be important. we were admitting students at ucla with large preferences who have a 90% chance of congratulating the only 50% chance of passing the bar. welcome. so that i cumulatively meant that only 45% of the students with large preferences that were admitting went on to go through law school and get their degrees. it wasn't hard to look at the schools and los angeles where the students with preferences would have gotten in without preference to see that those students seemed to have much better outcomes so i started looking into this and looked for the databases that could help test it, and by 2004, 2005, developed the paper that we first discussed this in the context and found that this was quite a large problem that nationally the great bulk of the minority students especially african-american students were
the existing law and involved in the in that examinations of the impediments to affect the resolution and we are working on a cooperative basis to overcome those. so in conclusion, dodd-frank is certainly given the significant new responsibilities to address these risks associated in the recent financial crisis. you take these responsibilities seriously and we are ready to use these authorities when they are needed. hopefully not. but while the key provisions are now in place, we are continuing to implement the remaining provisions in rulemaking and we continue to refine our thinking on the process we increase transparency in the rest of the market's on these powerful new tools and how they can best be used to maintain financial stability and end to big to fail. i look forward to participating in the q&a. thank you very much. [applause] >> now for the downside. first i want to thank you professor bachmann for organizing this. it's an excellent panel i must say and i've always enjoyed being on the panel with space and rick. laughter come i want to take on everything that was said, so let me g
spokesman. republican policies that have been being pushed by republicans for years, welfare reform, law and order policies, demagogued as racist, racist, racist, and when nixon says "law and order" we know what he's talking about. no law and order policies instituted by reagan and bush judges, rudy guiliani, bless his souls, tens of thousands of black lives were saved. when welfare was reformed, black lives were saved in a different way. welfare and law and order were so successful, bill clinton claimed credit for both. [laughter] we had 12 years of paradise, that's in the chapter, post-oj pair dice describing wonderful things that happened. people are not walking on egg shells anymore with the list of words you just mentioned. people had to be worried back then you would innocently say a word that would be deemed racist. you would ruin your career. you would be -- you would be hated by all of human kind. that was over after oj. a lot of the change after oj was really very subtle, but it was a wonderful thing that happenedded for race relations in america. that faded, it happened a long
designed to collect possible automation in a way that can scrub the laws. so you have these distinctions between methods and the missions of wikileaks versus traditional press such that if the government decides to bring a case in wikileaks i have some confidence that the rest of the press will not be chilled. but, obviously that is a tough line to draw. and it is getting tougher and tougher with more immediate, more news being disseminated by sort of these alternative routes , bloggers and the like. >> so let's do one more question here and then we will take some from the audience and a couple of minutes. so picking up, again, on the judge's comments about -- about some extent of over classification or misclassification and also on cans discussion of the hard issues that are posed by the legitimate was a blow or, the person who legitimately is motivated to disclose some kind of wrongdoing. i once asked about something that we hear a lot in cases about discovery in civil lawsuits. not so much. the idea that, perhaps, something is government conduct is arguably unlawful in some respects,
parenthood. it didn't become law, and the government didn't shut down. you didn't have to -- >> moderator: gentlemen, i guess let me jump ahead to a topic i was thinking of taking up later, but since it's on the table, congressman dold, your opponent says that on the 20 most important votes you did not break with your leaders even once, and that led the tea party to pull congress to the fringe. what is your response? dold: that was, actually, 24 votes. 20% of those votes pass with the the democratic majority. ten of those volts tenny hoyer voted for. not a single one talked about women's health care, the environment, not a single one was talking about transportation infrastructure, not a single one of those votes were dealing on education or a single one on gun control, all things that i think are important to the people of the 10th district and i think are critical votes -- [inaudible conversations] schneider. if we look at the record of this congress which is the most ineffective in our lifetimes, he voted twice with the ryan plan. he talks -- he voted with this congress over 200 times
and biofuels. either in the law and started researching and i said what about cannabis. she said best there is. magnitudes better than corn or slowly and i said but? don't you know? we are not even allowed to talk about it. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. conservative political pundit ann coulter presents her thoughts on race in america next on booktv. the author speaks at the four seasons hotel in los angeles for 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you for bringing ancient history, elbow to elbow. that is the key as everyone knows. it is an honor to be here. trivial information. forget it when you are out the door. it is an honor to be here. having been an actor simon recovered actors who is now in my right mind and my left brain but having been there for a long time i appreciate the club and all the statement has done to create the first oasis in the desert that is hollywood. thank you for that. really appreciate it. [applause] deeply appreciate all the amazing work that david did. you were magnificent on all the news channels exposing the travesty of the current a
district alone that means cuts of a billion dollars for our seniors. this law was not well thought out. it was not bipartisan but it was very partisan approach to health care reform transit do you have another plan? buerkle: yes, we do. >> maybe we can get to that with our follow-up question you. this is about medicare. as the population ages, the current cost projections for medicare our financial and sustainable the nation. so which of the several floated plans out there to put medicare on stronger financial footing do you support and why? we will begin with dan maffei. maffei: it's extremely important we save medicare, as a guaranteed benefit. the wait is now. not just for today's generation but for future generations to ann marie buerkle says if you're over 55 don't worry. there's real reasons why you should worry. if you're under 55 you better watch out because she wants to change it. the ryan budget should vote for makes into the voucher program. that's one way to handle it but there are other ways. medicare needs some adjustments but fundamentally it's a program that works. what
to their name. that is by law. so it's very easy to target black voters. now, as it turns out i started going through these names. i will give you one name, okay? from in the book here where i show you the actual purge list in "billionaires & ballot bandits." there is a mr. robert moore convicted of a felony crime and so all the black robert moore's in florida lost their. there are a few in florida but not only robert moore's from florida but brought moore, bobby more's they said these were covers for for the spell in trying to, including mrs. bobby moore. mr. moore gets convicted of a crime and mrs. bobby moore loses her vote but they got thing -- one thing right. she is b. al: a and by the way when i say she is, this is not from kathryn harrison's list. this is from a current list used by the state of florida, in which every single voter on this list, everyone, no exception, their only crime is voting while black. we can't find -- "the new york times" took four years to pick up the story for me, for years and it was on top of the bbc nightly news and they said the list was flawed. no, it's
with you. the body of law and rule is incredibly complicated. some of that does pertain to the evil banker hypothesis. i'm amended hereby the corollary evil lobbyist hypothesis, but i would add my own cause, which is the cubicle regulator aided and abetted by the expert lawyer hypothesis. and maybe in my practice i spend a lot of time. and the bells of these rules. and when you say okay, i think i had it. here's the definition of proprietary trading. some lawyer will say well, actually there was lawler versus knickerbocker case in 1842 in which that definition was not upheld -- so for this to be really clear, with another 52 pages in the federal register. that may be good lawyering, but it is incoherent rulemaking. i don't know what to do about it. i just say this is one of my personally favored hypotheses is a big problem of complexity risk and why i go back to a few clear standards to which real institutions accountable, i written on the poker rules mav is hispanic@. we have to make some clear decisions here. this current come in never never land that's largely constructed by people to d
by republicans for years, welfare reform, law and order policies, but they were demagogue is racist, racist, racist. when nixon says law and order we know what is really talking about. instituted by bye bye reagan-bush judges and rudy giuliani, bless his soul from new york city, tens of thousands of black lives were saved. when welfare was finally reformed tens of thousands of black lives were saved in a different way. welfare was so successful in law and order bills were so successful they were claiming credit for both. so we had 12 years of paradise within the chapter, post-o.j. paradise and many wonderful things that happened. most of all people were not walking on egg shells anymore. add to the list of words you just mentioned. people would worry about that you would innocently say a word and it he would ruin your career and you would be hated by all of humankind. that was over after oj and a lot of the change after oj was very subtle but it was a wonderful thing that happened for race relations in america. that faded, it happened a long time ago and along comes barack obama the most li
program, hundreds of degrees offered, 24 campuses, online world campus, academic health center, law school, 157 years of tradition. it is also in world that has continued to face ongoing controversy surrounding jerry sandusky, our board of trustees, current and former administrators and me. the legal process continues to unfold as evidenced by the attorney general's further charges level yesterday. today i want to tell you about my world, the realities of running an institution the size and scope of penn state while dealing with widely divergent perceptions. i want to share the wonderful law activities and accomplishments of our students and faculty and staff over this agonizing year. by any reasonable definition they are newsworthy stories but i understand you may not be willing to listen to them until we show you how this year has changed us. what have we learned about ourselves and what are we trying to do with that knowledge? i will speak candidly about how the last year has affected by in state and how the impact has gone beyond central pennsylvania to shape policies that colleges and
there was a difference between criminal law and tort law it was called intent if you accelerated somebody that was not murder now there is a man in jail southern mississippi 10 years without parole for putting clean fill dirt on his land sometimes it is moving dirt from an area to another. some was well intended the clean water act says you cannot dump pollutants per kriet agree. no chemical company should be allowed the nine your own land is not the same as dumping chemicals. >> host: and utilities and the senate? >> i brought the peg family from idaho ss of new $5,000 per day fine and told they cannot build on their land no water touches there they and it there's no rainwater new government said it is a wetland. looked at the website. it is not there. they say the website is not perfect. another family were raising bunnies and fined $90,000 with the rahm license. they had one. they said pay as within 30 days with your credit card. 90,000? but if not the fine is 3.1 million. these of the stories that should make americans mad and say no more. a big government run amok. >> what is your bi
training from here in the united states. i lead a rule law forum back to the states last january. all aimed at assisting the judicial system. as the saudi system has moved out on a number of areas, we have supported their efforts. in yemen, saudi arabia played a significant role in brokering a gcc led political transition agreement. and continue to provide a leadership role in the friends of yemen and support of the government. there have been the last few years a trend toward multilateralism. i say that with some reservation because certainly the gcc and the arab league have been active in the last two years in ways not previously seen. most recently, saudi arabia has pushed the idea of a gcc union patterned after the eu. for secretary clinton's national security operation form. last month in new york, it provides a venue for collaborative securities discussions with all of the gcc nations. but something has changed. it was reflected in the recent summit last august. i spoke with many of and some of them spoke with a different idea in the atmosphere of the meetings. one individual in parti
have strong connections with the city. my wife went to college here. my brother went to law school here is still practices here million diss sun does live in the city with his family. my wife has aunts and cousins so i have a strong connection to atlanta. tonight i will discuss abraham lincoln's role in the crisis of the union 18631861. more specifically what abraham lincoln and rejected any meaningful compromise following his election the country was gripped by a crisis because they feared lincoln it was the number party and probably sell. it did not have a significant connection lincoln was elected without a single electoral votes without the slave states and own the for border states and they are merely a handful. for the first time in nation's history to be taking over the executive branch of the national government. in the south major institution is the republicans' determination into a unit to win a national election without southern support republicans condemned the south as undemocratic. even un-american. with this party on the threshold for those who practice the gospel and new
with the city. my wife went to college here. one of my brothers went to law school here, and he still lives in a city and practices law here. older son also went to law school. but he does not live in a city. my youngest son does, however, with his family. he lives here. moreover, my wife has an aunt and cousins who live in the city. so i still have very strong connections to land. now, tonight i'm going to discuss abraham lincoln stroll, 1860-1861. more specifically, i want to talk about why abraham lincoln rejected any meaningful compromise. following his election as president november 1860, the country the script but a crisis. because many southerners feared lincoln and his republican party. republican party was a northern party, and proudly so. but it did not have a significant southern connection. lincoln was elected without a single electoral votes from any of the 15 slave states, and only four border states, missouri, kentucky, maryland and delaware did he get any popular vote. and they are nearly a handful. for the first time in the nation's history, a party without any notable sout
these things, um, in their practices if not in the laws they technically, they put on paper. no senior government official has ever been prosecuted for leaking. there's been hardly -- there's been almost zero disciplinary action. there hasn't been much energy or resources invested in finding leakers, much less going after them. in light of that longstanding background, it's not crazy to think that the government has in some practical sense, um, actually has kind of blessed "the new york times" to play a certain role within bounds. >> yeah. i mean, i guess the hard part i have is i agree with you at the sociological level, but there's no sociological defense for drake. those guys can't -- >> [inaudible] >> right. they can't come in and say, well, the big shots are doing it, and can it's good for society, but, you know, that's not a defense. >> this is why you're legally vulnerable. but i will say the jury plays some role here at least in espionage act prosecutions in channeling -- i gave the case for why at least in technical terms it's very hard to see why every classified information
-span2. now more from the fordham law school conference. next, we hear from former cia acting general counsel john rizzo, and former justice department inspector general lyn fine. posted by the center on national security, this is an hour 20 minutes. >> okay, marty has charged us with finding all the solutions, and luckily i'm only the moderator so i would have to charge the three of you with giving us some solutions. i think the way this panel is organized is to provide context for what you just heard. i hadn't quite realized it would work as a will that we have the right people to give the right context, both in terms of the law, in terms of the post-9/11 decade and where it's taken us, in terms of the self-regulating institutional function of government, to figure out its own problems, make its own recommendations and maybe suggest its own solutions. and in terms of what all this means from the point of view of working in the field, on the ground, inside a covert realm. so we're going to try to tie this all together today by looking at some of these issues. and i have to trust that
the pros do their job. >> do you think it's time for laws of robotics? >> the three laws of robotics are the rules that stop robots from killing. everybody brings this up, and for a robot to be smart enough to apply the three laws, they've already taken over the world; right? [laughter] that's really hard. that's artificial intelligence. turns out it's, like, just shooting guns, that's easy. robots are good at that stuff, but bad at reassuring people. that's not the way it's going to happen. we can't have -- we can't have robots with the intelligence to make ethical choices. we need to search society and cull qhur, what's what's going on, and evolve our regulatory and surveillance activity to stop it early. >> back to the technology, and there's questions about hobbyists, and you talked about the doctor e-mailing you, the dna for your vaccine. what if it was a spoof e-mail. e-mail is easy to spoof. ingest this, give it to your kids. worry about that? >> i talked to craig at length about this. right now, dna sint thinks is done by big companies. you can design a, you know, games on th
, and we need to think about the risks they may post to other people. and lastly under current law before turn to part about health reform, i just would be remiss if i didn't point out in terms of access that there are some eligibility gaps in the snap. now be for some legal immigrants and unemployed childless adults who face a three-month time in a three month time limit has been suspended in most parts of the country during the recession. but basically if you don't have shown and you're between 18-29 you can only get food stamps, snap for three months. over a three-year period. if you're not working. and so that time limit will be coming back in the coming years and is really a serious weakness in the program. and we can talk, if people want to comment about what some of the other changes that are legislative the under consideration in coming, in congress right now. if folks want to go there but i'm going to skip that. most of what i want to talk about, looking forward to the next few years, what is the future of the snap access, and we were think as i said, about packaging step with ot
. at our luncheons, we never talked about law, about which, of course, i knew very little. we talked mainly about religion and economics, religion being my subject and economics being jude wanniski's subject. and everyone was interested, and we became very good friends and have been very good friends, all of us, since then. c-span: did you ever talk about some of the things we've just talked about in--in the s--like aristotle and plato and whether... >> guest: oh, sure. c-span: of those three men, like judge silberman at the appeals court here or justice scalia at the supreme court or robert bork, the former appeals court judge--did they read all the same kind of things that you read? >> guest: i think some of them were moved to. yeah, some of them probably had already. i don't know. but they were interested. i mean, these are not just lawyers, these are not just legal thinkers. all of these people are what we would call intellectuals, namely have a very broad interest in ideas. and the thing they liked about being at aei is they were able to indulge that interest in ideas. c-span: do you h
is in law school. now she's the first lady and he's the president. theoretically people conflict. the clintons, i suppose to some extent. it's not uncommon to have a marriage for couples kind of take turns. i think that takes the pressure off of a marriage, like the marriage that one read about in 1962 with a woman fell and fell and the man felt like there was a news around his neck because there is so much pressure on him. that model of marriage has loosened up a little bit and created fairly happy comestible marriages for the college-educated. >> guest: >> host: i wonder about kids. clearly more kids in day care, small children in day care now there were 40 years ago. how can that be a good thing? >> guest: lots of countries. scandinavian countries, children go to day care when their one and mother stay home. of that is necessarily a bad thing. surveys are pretty politically neutral. the only measure americans, how much time you spend in leisure activities, how much time you spend with your kids. parents spend more time with their children now than they did in the 60's and 70's
that is an important thing to remember. i have a budget of law at -- a little more than $1 million, which is a lot three-person like me. a cultural institution for an impact with the entire city -- that is not a -- not that much. museums are run on a higher budget. university colleges, professors in universities are on a bigger budget. the point is that if we want to solve this and realize we want to have more coverage, there are ways to do that. we have setup a society that knows how to find institutions with that kind of impact. the "texas tribune," we inspired them -- now they inspire us with their ideas and structure. >> they are treated from people from a "texas monthly magazine" wanted to focus on local politics? >> we were featured on the front page of the "new york times" after investigations we did. they told us, what can we do here? they decided they wanted to do an entity in austen that covers politics relevant to the entire state. now they're running on a $5 million budget. we are all talking at that. that is a lot of money for the -- not a lot of money for the type of impact that inst
, a law school, and 157 years of tradition. it's also a world that has continued to face ongoing controversies surrounding jerry sandusky, our board of trustees, current and former administrators, and me. the legal process continues to unfold as evidence by the attorney generals further charges leveled yesterday. today, i want to tell you something about my world with the realities of running an institution the size and scope of penn state while dealing with widely divergent perceptions. i want to share the many wonderful activities and accomplishments of the students and faculty and staff over this agonizing year. by any reasonable definition, they are newsworthy stories. i understand that you may not be willing to listen to them until we show you how this year has changed us. what we learned about ourselves and what are we trying to do with that knowledge? i will speak candidly about how the last year affected penn state, and how the impact has gone beyond central pennsylvania to shape policies at colleges and universities across the nation. i'll share our strategies for the ye
to do what? last i checked, administer laws passed by congress. i think there's an open question whether they are doing that consistently across the board whether it's an energy space, environmental space, ect.. it's our job as attorneys general to participate in that transaction is preserved. that's why we filed a lawsuit. we'll see where it heads. it's less about the tax breaks for those corporations. it's more about what responsibility and opportunity has been vested in the state by the affordable care act in preserving that as a stake holder. >> i'm lee parsely with outside lawyer protection for lawsuit reform. in texas, there's a number of statutes that allow attorney general to have multiple violations. for a company that has inadvertently vollied the statute multiple times, those penalties can be substantial. at least philosophically, we've become concerned with that. do y'all have similar statutes in your state? is that an issue that we ought to have on the radar for those of us who are supporting the business community and their concerns about litigation? >> i can take that. tha
law obeyed in the second they saw was a rental car and a young kid, they pulled me over right away. he was the first time that a group the pattern that they looked for. and now of course they look for anything because the drug trade has become so profitable and lucrative. it's a $30 billion trade that anyone using anything, grandparents using rvs come to people in there as fishing boats and they go to the lake, doing anything because profits are enormous. so the cops are aware to look for that now. >> hipolito, how about your mexican background in relation to being able to infiltrate these groups? >> it was extremely important and yet i have to understand is that as soon as kind of thing that my spanish might not have been what it was from someone in mexico or central america when i was working on the cartels. the thing that it was brought out is the criminal element is not limited to hispanic american, but i was able to use my background again where i grew up, and seen some of the things that i grew up, so i was able to capitalize on my background, infiltrating. but what is important,
democrat voted against and did not become law and the government did not shut down. >> moderator: gentlemen let me jump ahead to a topic i was thinking about taking up a little later but since it's on the table congressman's dold your opponent says that on the 20 most important votes he did not break with your leaders even want once and not let the tea party to pull congress to the friends. what is your response to that? dold: my response is that was 24 votes if "the washington post" is correct. 24 this was passed with the majority and 10 of those votes danny hoyer voted with but do you know what's interesting about those votes? not a single vote talks about health care or the environment and not a single vote talks about transportation infrastructure. not a single one of those votes were dealing with education or a single one on gun control. all things that i think are important to people in the tenth district and i think are critical votes get my opponent doesn't want to talk about it. schneider: if you look at the
of family life so the rest of us can feel safe. my son-in-law is currently on his eighth deployment. my daughter is in special operations are my heroes. here is part of their everyday. although my name is listed as writing a chapter in this book, i cannot take all the credit. i was still so broken at a time of disaster at the rate the difficulty expressing myself. isn't that for my husband, gary, mathews went to reset comments high school sweetheart to work with them on the student council and his naval academy friend, matthew stories would not have been without their input and i deeply think them for their input. this book, "in the shadow of greatness" will help america to better understand the sacrifice and the love of country and the courage of the brave men and women in the families of the greatest literary source in the world. freedom isn't free. god bless our military family and god bless america. [applause] >> thank you, lisa, thank you, mrs. freeman. war brings us our own weakness, but to the challenges we face over the past 10 years of war, we also got stronger. and the seth ly
father-in-law died inherited three slaves. the first lady's great great grandmother and she ended up in a rough rural community in georgia, the vast majority of people were not slave voters, white men worked the fields along the slaves they own if they owned annie and it was quite a different experience than the one we often think about. >> it was quite a different experience and i really enjoyed reading about the people of that day, how she worked the fields and the men who owned her worked the fields. i know that you were not able to determine the relationship between millvinia and the men who owned her. and i also know, code of silence. she never talked about it and her descendants never talked about it. i noticed the same thing in her own family and other families as well. it is about wilkerson who wrote about the great migration, the same code of silence in her family. what is up with that code of silence? >> this is a painful chapter of american history for many families. so i think at the time, people knew. it would have been very clear to people. the people i met and intervie
-thinking immigration policy. >> around the world waiting to come to this country and willing to respect our laws. i support legal immigration. i think we need changes to our immigration laws so that immigration is based more on talent and hard work and ability and skill so we have a pro-america immigration policy. with respect to children who are brocket here by their parents at the young age, i think we need a solution to the problem. congressman asked me last week if i had been in the house would i have voted. yes is the answer. the bill never made it through the senate. we need bipartisanship approaches i look forwarding with working with marco ruin ya to make sure a loss passes not that a single faction can pass something to the house. that's the difference between the house and the senate. the priority when i was there to secure the border. that's opened up opportunities to reform our immigration system. heinrich: wush of one of the thing things things is border patrol agencies to the board and hundreds of new custom about. that doesn't fix the underlying issue. we have proactive community. th
't the states for the states run goods and services. regulatory laws governing the market shall be constrained by applicable sections of the constitution as amended. congress has six years from the date of ramification to adjust the current law and eliminate federal organizations and payment to the steve organizations to support or provide marketable goods and services. >> moderator: thank you. mr. macgovern? macgovern: i wouldn't support the bailout of government failed businesses. i believe and as i've said many times, free-market and free - a credit more wealth, more prosperity for more people than any other system coming and you have to be free to succeed, but you also have to be free to fail. orderly bankruptcy would have occurred part another company never took a nickel and survived and that is the way that i would have proceeded on that point. the government doesn't have any money. we are sending our children and grandchildren is money, so let the free market work. >> moderator: mr. moss? moss: the free market did really well. after the second world war when the united states was a grow
around the world not all of the laws are the same what can you do international become and how do you see this even if we got our act really together, how do you see the cooperation developing with foreign countries and other entities and so forth? >> i think that is a rapidly evolving area because there is no good international framework right now to deal with the international aspect of cyber investigation, cyber forensics and cyber deterrence if you think of prosecution as one kind of deterrent. there are some activities going on. for example, the u.s. and the e.u. have an ongoing cyber group by the league of budapest in this month actually come and they are working for some of these issues. the regular topics of the meetings that eric holder ready and i have with our counterparts in europe and in the g6 so we are trying to develop agreements, protocols and the like that will improve the international reach in this area. but it is very a much an act in progress. >> we will take one more question because she has to leave. right here. >> i'm understand that you have to head off to the fe
the law, because there are laws on the books that prevent these things from taking some shapes. but we've seen in europe, asia and other parts of the world really interesting ways of inventing the process of partnering that don't involve giving away public assets and public goods. nobody's talking about that. >> i think the other thing, and i talked about this earlier, i think some structural changes need to be made to how government functions. right now there is, there are very, very, very few cities who have any type of an entity that's tasked with looking out and across. and the way cities are set up now, the way agencies are set up now, the way the budgets are allocated, they do not foster innovation. you can go to pretty much any agency in any city in this country, okay, and their planning budget, their project plan has been set up for the next three to five years. it doesn't foster innovation. and so having, creating an entity that is empowered, okay, to find innovation, to drive innovation across these agencies that has a budge is one -- budget is one of the steps to get there.
liberation act was passed in 1998 and signed into law by president clinton and supported by many republicans in congress. it had bipartisan support. vice president gore was a supporter, that is why i am not completely convinced that that is a counterfactual point. we have a lot of interest and people were casting around, trying to find solutions. and i do think the initialization of afghanistan was correct, whether that means we need to be there for 10 years or until afghanistan becomes connecticut, that is another matter entirely. but i think the initial strikes against those were necessary and just. but then to go out and pursue regime change, prior to 9/11, they simply casted in search of a solution to a problem with a little class saw. >> libertarianism was fiscally conservative, so we will get back to the middle point. based on what he just said, during the bush years, bush-cheney, the focus was foreign policy. guantÁnamo bay, civil liberties, there is something that animated the hatred on the left. for the right, it wasn't specifically foreign policy and civil liberties. we have a pre
of law was applied a little bit more broadly and not necessarily for any other reason other than making sure there wouldn't be n new entrance to this kind ofw special club. >> host: in the western pressw during this crisis or uprising in syria, alepo was described as the commercial center of the country. why is that? tell us about that city. >> guest: for several hundred years, if not more, it was the meeting point between europe and asia and always developed a -- developed as a center of trade and commerce. that comet -- continued, of course, throughout the centuries throughout the 20th century and made it what it is in terms of its trade, in terms of its trade potential. now, also, it's a large city, not just a second city, it has been a place where many traders and manufacturers as well preferred either because it was historically quite vibrant or because it was far away from the center where they might have a bit more freedom, even though that margin of freedom was not wide. >> host: where are you from originally? >> guest: i'm lebanese, but my mother is syrian. >> host: lebanon
, which is pursuing a nuclear weapons program contrary to international norms and laws. so when the u.s. is negotiating with iran, i think we should keep that in mind. and i don't think the united states officially wants to implode the iranian government or have the iranian government collapse or have the iranian government capitulate. i think our goals are pretty well defined. we want iran to stop enriching uranium to a higher degree that can be used for a nuclear weapon, period. and i think that's very achievable. part of the problem is iran's supreme leader, ayatollah khamenei, like ken said, is inflexible. he's even more inflexible than khomeini was, and there are indications that his advisers including within the revolutionary guards are not happy with him. he's been criticized even publicly for his decisions and style of rule. and when we look at the islamic republic, this is not a system that's different than the other authoritarian regimes that have been overthrown in the middle east. it is corrupt, it denies its people basic rights, social, political and economic, it discrimi
of the audience, a committee of byu faculty members as well as the byu law school reviewed the questions. they selected those addressing important utah national issues. some questions were edited for clarity. mr. howell will have the first question of the debate, for subsequent questions we'll alternate which candidate answers first. each candidate will then have a minute to answer the question, and both will have an additional 30 seconds for rebuttal. if i determine that a follow-up question is appropriate, each will have 30 seconds to respond to my follow-up yes. the first question is from joseph haywood, a student here at brigham young university. joseph? >> regarding health care, what responsibilities, if any, do you believe rest with state and local governments, and what responsibilities, if any, lay with the federal government? howell: thank you, joseph. you know, health care is a fifth of our gdp right now. i serve on the board of directors for sutter health, the largest not-for-profit health care organization in california. we've known for a long time that we have to have afforda
approach than some of those around him like his late brother in law or his brother, but it really doesn't matter. it's in material. we see the situation. we know what it is. and it's going to continue. i think increasingly there's a consensus at what the situation is in syria and what some of the pitfalls are. you know, i think there's much more realism now than there was a year ago. about what's going on in that country. and much more sober assessment on the part of u.s. officials and others as to what can and can't be done. certainly, being a former diplomat, you would not be surprised to find out that a belief that this, we should be leaning a diplomatic effort. but i'm not a fan of those who want to blame america for the situation, or blame american action up to now for the terrible deterioration that has taken place. remember jeane kirkpatrick at a republican convention, i think we nominating ronald reagan, excoriating the democrats are also the blaming america first. i would say to our arab friends, you have to be careful, too, because first we were to present in the middle east,
of society along with rule of law, along with a stable economy, along with writing business. >> i have an answer that is probably quite controversial and it doesn't have to do with the military%, but it has to do with the policy on how the u.s. controls the development of medical devices and drugs. it has become so problematic that a fireman and medical technology developers are now going to other countries to do the clinical trials in the work necessary to prove that their devices work successfully in human. this is a very backwards way of promoting national security in the context of preventing people from disease and injury through advanced technology. budget is important i think that if our industry and the health sector is turning to other countries that we maintain strong relationships with those countries and make sure there's a handshake there between our medical professionals and their medical professionals, that were not just experimenting on their populations. i think that is an important unintended consequence of our current policy. >> if i could pile on to your question. i
funding. there was a law passed in 1933 that basically said you can only invest in companies if you're rich. this allows kind of democratizes access to investing and also democratizes for individual investors who want to invest and also those who want to access to capital for entrepreneurs. it's probably not that important or that helpful in silicon valley because there's tons of money and venture capitalists in silicon valley. it's really important in places like detroit. so now you'll have the ability next year toes, basically, put your business online, explain what you're trying to do, and people can make an investment up to $10,000 each, and if your income is a earn level, it's only up to $2,000. there are and people can raise up to a million dollars in total through this mechanism, and that will be the difference for, i think, thousands of entrepreneurs that otherwise wouldn't have been able to start a company or to have the beginnings of something, they wouldn't be able to scale the company. so i think it's an e nor pows opportunity for -- enormous opportunity for underserved
, leading important financial institutions after degrees from dartmouth, hbs and harvard law school and started his career with the philadelphia investment accounting film dealer. it was later bought i united asset management which churn for eventually ran he became the u. of delaware messman and next he was called to run putnam investments here in boston and even larger management firm that has advanced to the previous management. he righted that it eventually sold a good price for shareholders to a large canadian financial firm. it was at that time that we approached add to run. freddie and fannie, together with a broader issue of u.s. government involvement in housing finance is one of the major unfinished pieces of business and financial regulatory reform. it's clearly an important issue. we c-span here filming this. ed has the unique perspective. an experienced manager of the frontline running the gics and most thoughtful public policy participant. he's done when the talk about where the gics have been and what to do with them. my great pleasure to introduce ed haldeman. [appla
? if you have laws, regulations won't stop it, laws won't stop it, it is just vigilant. vigilance about citizens protection and the way that they need to comment having law enforcement in the right places in order to best leverage a limited number of resources. and i think we really need to get beyond the conversation cannot wait for the next 9/11 to come together and get something viable and practical that we can do. >> is there anything other than this that you suggest, samantha? >> yes, i'm not really going to talk about it, they will tell you about whether or not it works. but i think that every agency has seen tremendous assets going. and we find out about it. what we find out about it from the outside. we find out about it a lot of ways. i think that our rule is to make sure that the data and the damages assessed as much as we can. we make sure that we protect everything that we can. nasa has said that we don't want to give away certain things. everyone who says we don't want this, they just don't know. but agencies, just like we talked about, we are not going to go and just give
structures. right now, washington is like that faraway farm that is generating these laws. and that tomatoes that taste like cardboard is a lot of having to do with this. we have so many ideas about how individuals and towns have been able to do exciting works. i think that is incredibly important. what i learned was the importance of dialogue and deliberation. i am someone who likes action. i was not convinced that it was so important for all of us to get together and have conversations and shared things like this. but working with susan and seeing the example, talking about the different examples really convinced me, particularly in new hampshire. they were in the middle of this bitter redistricting. they went through this whole process to where they are able to create study circles. so the people can come together and realize what fools they have in common. they came up with a plan that involved people that get really evolve. for them to be able to do that and take these possibilities that weren't there in the national conversation, you are either for or against. what they were able to do
that health care law? collins: out through the. right now businesses are sitting on more cash that they want to use to invest more jobs. but with the uncertainty of the deficit, coupled with the uncertainty on obamacare where if you're at 50 employees your subject to obamacare, if you don't have 50 employees you're not. so yes right now obamacare is stopping companies from investing because they don't want what they see with a government takeover telling them what benefits to provide. so obamacare is not on stopping jobs today, but was obamacare companies are not going to expand spent congresswoman? hochul: ugly the question was what do we do to get this economy going. >> correct 21st of all government doesn't create jobs. we create conditions for them to double do what they do best and that is a create jobs. first thing we need to do is make sure young people have the skills they need for the 21st century. jobs are going unfilled, mind-boggling that young people are graduating without the skills to step into a dance manufacturing jobs and our employers are begging for jobs. so we can do so
somethinge on the order of 95% primarily because of moore's law. companies are making the software so much easier to use. we are training people how to use these tools in two or threeg class sessions. now, they're not world class mill rights at the end of two oe three sessions, but if you're patrick buckley and you want to do an ipad case and you come in and take three classes, 90 days later you could have, just like he did, a million dollar company. they did $10 million this year. square did the original threeuae prototypes at tech shop on the benches, so they're doing just fine. so the chasm has just gotten much smaller. typically when you do a software start-up, now you need 25, 50, $75,000. well, now you can do a hardware start-up for the same kind ofsa money.me. we've had dozens and dozens andd dozens of crowd-funded projects come through from $10,000 to $100,000 that actually got them all the way through the prototyping stage, their first run in manufacturing. thatne is new to the world.ee you've never been able to do that for those kind of pricepoi points. >> danae, all kinds of ama
a beloved father, grandfather great grandfather, uncle cousin and in law. we extend to you our deepest pledge to hold you in our prayers as you move through this season of sorrow. you have embraced and in the lord with remarkable dignity and charity a public season of grief. so thank you again for sharing george with a generation that also grieves with you. on behalf of a profoundly grateful united methodist church who proudly claims george stanley mcgovern as a son and example of our heritage of personal wholeness and social holiness i thank each of you for coming today to celebrate and monitor senator if -- senator mcgovern's life and witness. share the mcgovern family's grief. i thank you for coming to say goodbye to a dear friend, a political colleague, trusted men for -- [no audio] geography and culture of the area formed him as it has many of us, to embrace the common person and tirelessly worked for the common good. george mcgovern was also a prairie profit. he was a home town profit. in the tradition of the judeo-christian profits he called and inspired an
election law there's nothing that calls for personal financial disclosure which both of us felt that the issues both you and your husband are sector millions. i fully filled out those forms in full compliance. and i went a step further but i three years of my tax returns. it was published that take 30% of my income in taxes. i have no loopholes. i've no for an account. it's my small businesses where i make my money. you make your money working for the government are doing your money -- you and your husband make almost three and $50,000 a year. my income is earned by having companies that employ workers in this a. i think the bigger question is, you've got something hidden in your to secret family trusts that you won't disclose and you haven't disclosed. so ms. hochul, ladies and those to secret family trusts ask because i've a feeling they may be something you don't want the voters to know. hochul: you've got to be kidding me. give it a pretty big you're the one who has refused to put your personal taxes on one because you said the voters basically were not smart enough to under
there whose fate is is too subsidized by the federal government. there's actually a major law signed this summer, the bigger waters flood insurance reform act. it was designed to improve the program. it removes a lot of subsidies that the government has put into the program. the goal of it is to make the program were actuarially found him a of private insurance program. >> host: "the wall street journal" this morning, the editorial, taxpayer jay louche. for those who don't have the 1960s era program offers subsidized insurance of the bull market raced to homeowners and businesses in flood prone areas and pays private insurers to administer the policy at the government accountability office put it zero so delicately lasher the program has a history of significant management challenges, including lax internal controls and outdated maps. the program has crowded out by the competition for decades, which leaves taxpayers on the hook when disaster strikes. that's "the wall street journal." "washington journal" if i could respond, i represent the independent insurance brokers of america. we
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 60

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)